Alexander Dugin explains how international law has collapsed and why the struggle between unipolar domination and a multipolar world order may be leading us toward a Third World War. Observing current global politics, it is evident that many now understand that international law, as it once was, no longer exists. It has become a mere treaty among major powers—those capable of defending their sovereignty in practice. These powers determine their own rules and delineate what is permitted and what is forbidden, adhering to these self-created standards.
International law operates in phases—defined beats—maintaining balance among major powers. The Westphalian system, which respects nation-state sovereignty, emerged from a stalemate in power dynamics among Catholics and Protestants, supported by anti-imperial France. Had the Catholics triumphed, a radically different European architecture would have emerged, preserving medieval structures. Interestingly, it was the Protestant nations of Northern Europe that gained from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, steering toward national monarchies as a counter to the Pope and the Emperor. Although they did not achieve total victory, they secured their primary objectives.
Formally, the Westphalian system has endured, as international law is still constructed on the principle of nation-states, a tenet championed by the Protestants during the Thirty Years’ War. However, this principle initially applied only to European states and their colonies, and even then, not all nation-states enjoyed true sovereignty. While all nations are deemed equal, European powers (the Great Powers) are “more equal” than others. A degree of hypocrisy exists in recognizing weak states’ national sovereignty, counterbalanced by the theory of Realism, which reflected long-established disparities in international relations. In practical terms, weak states often form coalitions with stronger ones to defend against potential aggression from other robust powers.
The League of Nations attempted to lend greater solidity to international law within the Westphalian framework, striving to partly limit sovereignty and establish universal principles rooted in Western liberalism, pacifism, and early globalism. Countries, both large and small, were expected to adhere to these principles. Essentially, the League was an initial step towards a World Government. It was during this period that the Liberal school of International Relations took shape, contesting Realist perspectives. Liberals posited that international law would eventually overshadow the full sovereignty of nation-states, leading to a coherent global system. Realists countered that absolute sovereignty—an echo of the Peace of Westphalia—would prevail.
However, by the 1930s, it became apparent that neither the liberal ideals of the League of Nations nor even the Westphalian system were viable under the prevailing balance of power in Europe and the world. The rise of the Nazis in Germany in 1933, fascist Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1937, and the USSR’s war with Finland in 1939 effectively dismantled the foundations of this system. The League was officially dissolved in 1946, but its initial attempts to establish a comprehensive, mandatory international law had already failed in the preceding decade. The 1930s gave rise to three ideological poles of sovereignty.
In this context, what mattered was not merely formal sovereignty but the real power potential of each ideological bloc. World War II served as a crucible testing the viability of these ideological camps. One camp embodied bourgeois-capitalist nations—primarily England, France, and the USA—though they were forced to defend their ideology against the formidable adversaries of fascism and communism. The bourgeois-capitalist bloc proved to be sufficiently sovereign; England resisted Hitler’s advances, and the USA effectively fought against Japan in the Pacific.
The second camp—European fascism—gained strength particularly during Hitler’s conquests across Western Europe. Nearly all European nations fell under the shadow of National Socialism, and sovereignty was a mere illusion for many, with only Germany embodying an authentic claim to sovereignty through its ideological representation of Hitlerism. The final camp was the USSR, a single state tethered to the Marxist-Leninist ideology that transcended national boundaries.
Thus, in the 1930s, international law—represented by the last remnants of the Versailles Agreements and the League of Nations—eroded, yielding authority to ideological forces and military might. Each ideological bloc developed its interpretations of what constituted international law: the USSR championed a worldview rooted in proletarian internationalism, Hitler’s regime sought global dominance under a racial ideology, while the bourgeois-capitalist West aspired to maintain continuity with the Westphalian system while progressing toward a liberal international order.
The aftermath of World War II birthed the United Nations, which sought to establish a new framework for international law. This representation bore similarities to the League of Nations but was distinguished by the USSR’s ascendant influence, which asserted ideological control over Eastern Europe. National sovereignty reverted largely to Moscow and the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), while the USA emerged as the core of sovereign liberalism, reshaping the power dynamics that had existed between America and its allies.
Post-war international law reflected the balance of power established by the victors of World War II, with true sovereignty confined to Washington and Moscow, in a bipolar world structure. As the 1989 collapse of the USSR redefined global paradigms, the unilateral dominance of the USA emerged, effectively nullifying the principle of nation-state sovereignty and weaving a narrative wherein international law became a relic of an earlier age.
With the ascendance of American-led globalization in the 1990s, the subordination of nation-states to supranational entities became evident, demonstrating that international law was now a tool for enforcing American hegemony. Initiatives like the European Union epitomized the push toward a cohesive supranational order, underpinned by a singular ideological agenda dictated by Western interests.
The UN, once central to global governance, gradually lost significance, as its structure remained mired in the remnants of the bipolar world. Calls began in the USA to reconstruct international relations, reflecting a blatantly unipolar perspective. Within the United States, a dual current of globalism arose, embodying ideological liberalism alongside assertive American hegemony.
Nonetheless, despite the prevailing dominance of the unipolar model, the tandem rise of China and Russia, particularly under Putin, signals the dawn of multipolarity. Emerging forces are challenging Western globalism and defining a nascent multipolar world that rejects the previous ideological frameworks. Today, five distinct international relations systems operate simultaneously—none of which are fully compatible with one another.
This chaos reveals that international law, defined by five conflicting systems, effectively ceases to exist in any coherent form. Such deep contradictions on a global scale have historically rarely resolved peacefully, indicating that those who refuse to defend their vision find themselves subservient to foreign world orders.
The possibility of a Third World War, particularly by 2026, looms large—that does not equate to inevitability but underscores the precariousness of our current geopolitical state. A world war, by definition, encompasses nearly all nations, with the central actors being the collective West and the emerging multipolar blocs of Russia, China, and India. Thus, the urgency arises for a new international law that reflects the realities of a multipolar world—a necessity that is yet to be fully conceptualized.
Such a new framework must enable states to reclaim their identities as civilization-states in a redefined global order, one that allows for a distinct state-civilization, such as a “Russian World.” Rapid conceptualization of this new international law is imperative for navigating the tumultuous landscape ahead.
